Republican Congressman accused of pederasty - Page 9

**TheFeniX** · 10-18-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Again with the derisive sarcasm in this forum.

Most of my sarcasm is directed at our current administration more than anything. But I did look over my post again and noticed this:

"Sure would like to see some evidence." That was directed at Cingular, and I apologize for that.

Just before making this post, I was reading on another forum and was doing some research and had recieved a "fresh" look at all the pictures for Guantanamo and the words going through my head was the laughable assumptions by Rumsfeld (I think) that those pictures weren't about torture, they were about sex. The blatant white-washing from the Bush administration is so mind-bogglingly unethical, it makes me sick.

**leejo** · 10-18-2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

I don't think it's got so much to do with "allowing." It's just that Democrats don't seem nearly as bothered by the idea of going through a political opponant's personal communications as they are with the idea of the military listening to communications with terrorists. You may call it an unsupportable argument, but I don't think so. If "principle" was really what it was about, they would be calling for people to settle down, not talk about it, and allow a court of law to investigate and decide if there was probable cause to issue a search warrant to sieze the original communications, no?

Bingo.

**CingularDuality** · 10-18-2006, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

Um, when that information to "protect our nation from the very real threat of terrorism" is obtained via "unlawful search and seizure," there's not much confusion: unless it's Bush trying to spell "Constitution" or "Rights."

You're assuming that our civil rights protections (that guard us against corrupt or lazy criminal prosecutions) also extend to national security situations. Searching for foreign criminals and searching for foreign enemies are two completely different things. If the President's wiretapping came across evidence of an opium ring and the intel was used to launch a non-terror related investigation into that drug ring, THEN it would be unconstitutional. Using the intel to track down and destroy terrorists is not.

Quote:

"In a 44-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor struck down the NSA program..."

Nevermind the fact that her Circuit overturned her order while on appeal.

**TheFeniX** · 10-18-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

You're assuming that our civil rights protections (that guard us against corrupt or lazy criminal prosecutions) also extend to national security situations.

No, I'm assuming that our government would practice what it preaches.

Quote:

Searching for foreign criminals and searching for foreign enemies are two completely different things. If the President's wiretapping came across evidence of an opium ring and the intel was used to launch a non-terror related investigation into that drug ring, THEN it would be unconstitutional.

So, it's ok because we don't actually charge these people with anything. We just make sure to hold them indefinately and beat more information out of them. They had sure hope they actually DO know something.

Quote:

Using the intel to track down and destroy terrorists is not.

And it's been a success, how?

Quote:

Nevermind the fact that her Circuit overturned her order while on appeal.

Always helps to find a friendly judge the second time around.

**CingularDuality** · 10-18-2006, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

And it's been a success, how?

How many terrorist attacks have happened in the United States since September 2001?

Quote:

Always helps to find a friendly judge the second time around.

Or the second highest panel of judges in the United States... There's no "finding" a friendly judge when taking it to the Circuit.

Steeler · 10-18-2006, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

You're assuming that our civil rights protections (that guard us against corrupt or lazy criminal prosecutions) also extend to national security situations.

Why shouldn't they? "National security" is a label applied by a bureaucrat or a pundit. I should think that if national security is at stake, "corrupt or lazy" proceeding become particularly dangerous things to guard against.

Quote:

Searching for foreign criminals and searching for foreign enemies are two completely different things. If the President's wiretapping came across evidence of an opium ring and the intel was used to launch a non-terror related investigation into that drug ring, THEN it would be unconstitutional. Using the intel to track down and destroy terrorists is not.

What makes these things different? Scale of the threat? If so, then we have a problem, as drug trafficking is a far larger numerical threat to the safety of American citizens. Or is it just fear that makes the distinction?

We are way off topic now, but the issue that most people have with seeing civil liberty protections undermined in the name of counter terrorism is that all of these new powers hinge on the basic goodness and honesty of the government. Historically, our laws are written so that devils could run the government and not be able to do devilish things. It is the threat of abuse that worries us.

Edit:

Quote:

How many terrorist attacks have happened in the United States since September 2001?

I have a rock that prevents tiger attacks. You don't see any tigers around here do you?

**CingularDuality** · 10-18-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

...all of these new powers hinge on the basic goodness and honesty of the government.

These aren't "new powers". The President of the United States of America has always had this authority. It's written into the Constitution. The difference is technology. Spies don't get dispatched wearing a messenger bag full of illicit communiques anymore.

Quote:

Edit: I have a rock that prevents tiger attacks. You don't see any tigers around here do you?

I also haven't seen you bash any tigers upside the head, nor have I heard any tigers threatening to eat you worse than you've ever been eaten before!

Don't equate imaginary tigers with the reality of terrorism. It's an insult to all those that have died, both in terrorist attacks and to protect you from further attacks. This is the lowest thing I've heard you say yet...

**leejo** · 10-18-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

So, it's ok because we don't actually charge these people with anything. We just make sure to hold them indefinately and beat more information out of them. They had sure hope they actually DO know something.

Huh? You're just making stuff up now. US Citizens are still protected by the bill of rights, and non-US Citizens never were.

Quote:

Always helps to find a friendly judge the second time around.

I don't think you know how the Appellate Courts work. They are made up of several justices who vote. In this case, the justices were Alice Batchelder, Ronald Gilman and Julia Gibbons. Their decision was unanimous, and had little comment. You may disagree with it, but there was Clinton appointee, so the deck wasn't stacked against citizens in favor of big oil or halliburton or George Bush, and they know what they're talking about and you don't, so it might be more interesting to read what they have to say:

Quote:

The government moves for a stay pending appeal of the district court’s order holding the
Terrorist Surveillance Program unconstitutional and permanently enjoining the Government from
utilizing the Program “in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of
telephone and internet communications, in contravention of [FISA and Title III].”

In considering whether a stay pending appeal should issue, we balance the traditional factors
governing injunctive relief: (1) whether the applicant has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other interested parties; and (4) where the public interest lies. Baker v. Adams County/Ohio Valley Sch. Bd., 310 F.3d 927, 928 (6th Cir. 2002);
Michigan Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir. 1991). This court, in Grutter v. Bollinger, 247 F.3d 631, 633 (6th Cir. 2001), noted that Michigan Coalition said that the success on the merits which must be demonstrated is inversely proportional to the harm. More than a possibility of success must be shown, and “even if a movant demonstrates irreparable harm that decidedly outweighs any potential harm to the nonmoving party if a stay is granted, he is still required to show, at a minimum, ‘serious questions going to the merits.’” (edits and citations omitted).

After careful review, we conclude that this standard has been met in this case. Accordingly,
the motion for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Doesn't look too good for the Taylor decision.

IMO the Appellate court will overturn, it will be appealed to the SCOTUS, who will decline to hear the case without comment.

**TheFeniX** · 10-18-2006, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

How many terrorist attacks have happened in the United States since September 2001?

Oh man. Steeler just completely beat me to that. He is king only because I was going to use a Simpsons reference about "the Bear Patrol." His is more concise and I applaud him.

We HAD warnings about 9/11 and no one did a damn thing. The government knew Katrina was coming and did nothing. Just because they [b]might/b] have (or be able to get) the info (which this program has offered nothing for it), doesn't mean they can do anything with it.

Besides, we HAVE had terrorist attacks in America. They've all been domestic raids on our rights. Isn't that what we're protecting? Our way of life? Our rights to freedom? Isn't "TERROR!!!" what Fox blasts America with every time they run a special on "Are we really safe? Of course not!" Keep us scared and ignorant.

Quote:

Or the second highest panel of judges in the United States... There's no "finding" a friendly judge when taking it to the Circuit.

Then I'll go with the highest court we have.

"The Bush administration doesn’t argue that warrantless wiretapping was something specifically contemplated in the text or by Congress. Rather, the administration argues that it is implied as part of a broad authorization to “use all necessary and appropriate force.”

The Supreme Court has rejected that expansive interpretation. It’s a huge blow to the administration’s legal rationale for warrantless wiretapping. "

Let's hope they hold firm when the time comes to strike this law down.

**TheFeniX** · 10-18-2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Huh? You're just making stuff up now. US Citizens are still protected by the bill of rights, and non-US Citizens never were.

So we grant rights to illegal Mexican immigrants, yet a Canadian who just happens to have Syrian citizenship who entered into America legally (for just a turn-over) doesn't have the right to be treated like a human being?

Besides unless this article is competely off:

"In contrast, Specter's bill concedes the government's right to wiretap Americans without warrants, and allows the U.S. Attorney General to authorize, on his own, dragnet surveillance of Americans so long as the stated purpose of the surveillance is to monitor suspected terrorists or spies."

Am I missing something here? Basically, use the term "turrest" and it's ok to do whatever you want, Bill of Rights be damned?

Quote:

::snip::

After careful review, we conclude that this standard has been met in this case. Accordingly,
the motion for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED.

They're allowing for an appeal. The rest is covered in my preceding post.

Steeler · 10-18-2006, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Don't equate imaginary tigers with the reality of terrorism. It's an insult to all those that have died, both in terrorist attacks and to protect you from further attacks. This is the lowest thing I've heard you say yet...

Oh come on. We're talking about public policy and civil rights. Regardless of the real or percieved threat of terrorism, I doubt the efficacy of some of the legislation and policies being used in the name of fighting terrorism. As such, my comment was directed at your rhetoric.

Don't toss the collective victims and armed forces up as a rhetorical shield. That's one of the lowest things I've heard you say.

**CingularDuality** · 10-18-2006, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

Oh come on. We're talking about public policy and civil rights. Regardless of the real or percieved threat of terrorism, I doubt the efficacy of some of the legislation and policies being used in the name of fighting terrorism. As such, my comment was directed at your rhetoric.

Don't toss the collective victims and armed forces up as a rhetorical shield. That's one of the lowest things I've heard you say.

Rhetorical shield? I was doing no such thing. Don't try to redirect your ridiculous implication that terrorism is the same as an imaginary tiger onto me!

We've disrupted terrorist networks many times in many ways since 2001. No imaginary tiger in that regard.

We've also been threatened by terrorist organizations and nations many times since 2001. No imaginary tiger in that regard, either.

So, if I'm right and you're wrong, why would I need a "rhetorical shield"?

I hope that you feel at least a little shame for the way you chose to try to make your argument.

Steeler · 10-18-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Don't try to redirect your ridiculous implication that terrorism is the same as an imaginary tiger onto me!

That was not my argument. My point was that claiming that since there have been no attacks since 2001, whatever we are doing must be preventing attacks is a fallacy. I'm not going to be shamed for a position I do not hold. Cool your ire.

**TheFeniX** · 10-18-2006, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Rhetorical shield? I was doing no such thing. Don't try to redirect your ridiculous implication that terrorism is the same as an imaginary tiger onto me!

You don't need to watch the sheep when you've already slaughtered all the wolves. And as much as has been said otherwise, this whole issue does affect domestic citizens.

Quote:

We've disrupted terrorist networks many times in many ways since 2001. No imaginary tiger in that regard.

And show some evidence that the use of illegal wiretappings led to this disruption. I would think it has more to do with us obliterating the terrorist infrastructure when he stomped Afganistan into the ground.

Quote:

We've also been threatened by terrorist organizations and nations many times since 2001. No imaginary tiger in that regard, either.

Yea, that tends to happen when you supplant governments on a whim.

Quote:

So, if I'm right and you're wrong, why would I need a "rhetorical shield"?

Because you're attacking the man not the arguement. You glossed over the fact that there's no evidence to support the claim that illegal wiretaps are doing anything, instead choosing to appeal to an emotional response to 9/11.

Quote:

I hope that you feel at least a little shame for the way you chose to try to make your argument.

He has absolutely no reason to be ashamed about his arguement.

**CingularDuality** · 10-19-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

You don't need to watch the sheep when you've already slaughtered all the wolves. And as much as has been said otherwise, this whole issue does affect domestic citizens.

And show some evidence that the use of illegal wiretappings led to this disruption. I would think it has more to do with us obliterating the terrorist infrastructure when he stomped Afganistan into the ground.

Yea, that tends to happen when you supplant governments on a whim.

Because you're attacking the man not the arguement. You glossed over the fact that there's no evidence to support the claim that illegal wiretaps are doing anything, instead choosing to appeal to an emotional response to 9/11.

He has absolutely no reason to be ashamed about his arguement.

I was not appealling to an emotional argument, I was pointing out the lack of attacks since that event. Steeler was the one (and you've joined him), that claimed that terrorism is an empty threat, that there aren't any terrorists that want to hurt us, just like there are no tigers around him.

You th

Sponsored links

Sponsored links